Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all remaining assembly members,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 09:57 PM 4/6/2001, Russ Smith wrote:
> >The issue involves services offered by the Registry and the Registrars.
> >ICANN is the manager of the shared registry system and has agreements with
> >the Registry and the Registrars.  ICANN has the authority under these
> >agreements to set standards and requirements for the Registry and Registrar
>
> One more time:  ICANN does not develop technical specifications.  It can
> cite a requirement to follow one specification or another, but it does not
> create them.

  Yes.  Which leaves one to wonder just what ICANN does do other than
spend allot of time having some folks telling everyone what it DOESn't
do, and reeking havoc on DN holders, self starting Registries that are
sick and tired of the exclusive practices of its policy dance....

>
>
> >-A standard format for the output.  Currently this involves a text file
>
> Thanks for the technical pedagogy.
>
> This has been the topic of IETF discussions.  I am hopeful that a
> specification will yet emerge.

  To be sure, if it is anything like IPv6 development, we will all grow
old waiting.  That is not expectable or reasonable.

>
>
> >output.  ICANN could have instituted a standard format for this out.
>
> You are confusing the difference between citing/choosing a specification,
> versus having the expertise to develop one.  ICANN is not designed for
> designing technical specifications.

 Again this leads one to wonder what ICANN is designed to do.  What it has
done is been for the most part not in the best interests of the stakeholder
community as we have clearly thus far seen....

>
>
> >If this had been done at the start of the planning for the shared registry
>
> things were/are a tad more complicated than you are suggesting.

  Oh?  How so?  Possibly you could provide some enlightenment?
No?  Well such a shame!  >;)  Possibly the ICANN BoD could
answer the now some 1000's of questions that have been posed
it has yet to answer along these lines.

>
>
> >-"Advanced" features such XML or non-port 43 standards.
>
> Etc. Etc.  A collection of technical issues that need to be considered,
> specified, etc., etc.  Yes, that is what a standards body does.
>
> >-What information should be in the WHOIS database.  This is more of a policy
> >issue and would take longer but ICANN was very late in starting.
>
> Yeah.  It's a shame that ICANN has spent so much time doing other things.

  Ho unfortunately and terribly true.  Most of which have been predominantly
viewed as not in the best interests and many times without due process...

>
>
> After all, it has infinite resources and wonderfully constructive
> assistance from the community.

  Indeed it does.  It is a shame that the ICANN BoD and staff have
inadequately availed it self of these wonderful resources to date...

>
>
> So a trivial item like determining whois information requirements that will
> be acceptable on a global scale should not have taken this long...

  Very true.  But it seems it has, doesn't it....  A terrible and unnecessary
shame...

>
>
> >Roberts stated essentially that the WHOIS has been in
> >place for a long time
>
> This is particularly true in terms of the information carried in whois
> records. And focusing on immediate crises is generally viewed as a superior
> management style than attending to matters that might be uncomfortable, but
> otherwise have a long and stable history.
>
> So your point is what?

  The point is obvious. Unfortunately you along with a few others have
yet to grasp it.  Hopefully someday very soon you/they will....
I hope that I should live so long....

>
>
> >I guess you can call it global since there are registrars all over the world
> >and I guess you could call in infrastructure since it is WHOIS.  If you are
> >trying to imply that it is some kind of major technical obstacle then I,
> >unfortunately, do not understand.
>
> Defining, building and deploying new technical specifications on the
> Internet takes a long time

Nonsense.  We have for instance developed three different implementations
for Whois, two different implementation of Bind (BindPlus), and a security
Interface Facility in less time that ICANN has been in existence.

>

>
>
> >The main point of contention with the general public is the requirement to
> >show all the information about all the contacts and the owner.
>
> Yes, that is the "information policy" reference you made earlier.  As we
> have seen from various discussions on public lists, the matter is not
> subject to quick resolution.

  Opt-in or Opt-out of personal information.  How difficult can that be?

>
>
> >What it comes down to is that if ICANN took the initiative to institute
> >things like the UDRP and the Verisign deal then they should have had time to
> >more on the WHOIS issue by now.
>
> You seem to missing some basic points.  One is that the UDRP came after
> several YEARS of public discussion.

  Yes, and for most of that time, the vast majority of participants and
especially
interested parties were not fully included purposefully....

>  Another is that negotiating with a
> single contractor (Verisign) is rather different than negotiating with a
> community.

  Well you got this right anyway.

>
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html